Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 584176 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Thumper81

  • Guest
  • *
  • 450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1675 on: November 27, 2019, 22:59:03 »
RUMINT: All thirty two Mk41 VLS will be strike length.  There will be 24 CAMM midships (where the UK are putting theirs) for the Close In Air Defence requirement (I assume launched from the 6 ExLS launchers, quad packed).   There will be 8 NSM just aft of that. 

I was told the RCN was not interested in a gun based missile defence system so there will be no CIWS option.  The CIAD requirement was met by the CAMM.

I foresee the return of the Standard Missiles(SM-2 or SM-6. Probably not SM-3).  The no Phalanx option feels like a bad idea (reaction time, minimum engagement range, etc).  Perhaps get SeaRAM(Phalanx with RAM missiles) instead of Phalanx for CIWS.  Are they planning on having some smaller calibre guns outside of the 5 inch (ala Mk 38 Bushmaster or DS30)?  I know it is slightly different, but the RN Type 26 has TWO Phalanx's CIWS on the render drawing.

Online LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 209
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1676 on: November 28, 2019, 10:36:44 »
Speaking of CIWS, been noticing half the mockups and promotional images either have Phalanx, SEARAM, or nothing.

Reading up about the RN's 40MM option on the Type 31, seems like it could be a good option. Plus...broadsides...

Offline Spencer100

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 621
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1677 on: November 28, 2019, 13:32:11 »
So the decades of the RCN work with the ESSM is out the window?  with everything moving to CAMM. 

Could the SM-6 be Canada's response to ABM?  "see US we are doing something"

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1678 on: November 28, 2019, 14:29:53 »
So the decades of the RCN work with the ESSM is out the window?  with everything moving to CAMM. 

Could the SM-6 be Canada's response to ABM?  "see US we are doing something"

SM for long range, ESSM for intermediate and CAMM for close in. Better than a PHALANX with less chance of self damage.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 463
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1679 on: November 28, 2019, 16:32:25 »
But there could also be lasers, yes? If so, don't forget the lasers for close in defense.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,600
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1680 on: November 28, 2019, 16:42:30 »
Somewhere deep in these threads from last year is a post where the RCN has committed to purchasing 23 brand new gatlin’ guns. They could be for the Felex/HUp program but at least 4 were for the JSS.
... Move!! ...

Online YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 30,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 842
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1681 on: November 28, 2019, 17:33:05 »
But there could also be lasers, yes? If so, don't forget the lasers for close in defense.
Do they even have the power available?

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 463
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1682 on: November 28, 2019, 17:44:48 »
Do they even have the power available?
I thought someone previously stated that it's in the design.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 463
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1683 on: November 28, 2019, 17:48:04 »
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/local-news/new-royal-navy-warships-amazing-3456491
The information is found in the link, it's already in the Type 26 design.

From the article:

And, the same month, the MOD revealed the Frigates would be armed with a new laser beam weapon that destroys drones and missiles and doesn't need ammunition.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,148
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1684 on: November 28, 2019, 18:14:14 »
Just to sort out a few things.

1) CIWS is not viewed in the RCN as a missile defence system.  It's viewed as a damage mitigation system.  If the CIWS is shooting its to reduce damage to the ship as you will still be sprayed with missile bits, just hopefully not the burny/explodie ones.  The CAMM has a very short minimum range for a missile (1km) and is much more accurate.  CAMM is just a vertically launched Rolling Airframe Missile if one wants to think of it this way.

As for CIWS anti-surface capabilities, these will be covered better with the 30mm guns designed for that specific purpose.

2) Don't trust models from shows.  They are only going to give you a generic idea.  It's not the bid.  I have seen 3 different versions of the CSC with Harpoons, CIWS, different radars, different flight deck arrangements, some with rear doors for the VDS and some without etc...

3) The Type 26 the UK and Australians are building are completely different from what we are building, and from each other except for general hull design and some engineering.  What other countries do are different as their requirements are different.

4) Yah lasers aren't there yet.   Future growth.

5) Canada isn't giving up on the ESSM.  Strike length VLS take quad packed ESSM 2.  Which means a huge capability for ESSM loadout as they are longer ranged than CAMM.  This being said I've read a few places of some exploration of a ESSM-ER (extended range) with a booster like the Aster 15 to 30 conversion.  SM6 are very expensive.  SM2 had to brought back into production in 2016 for foreign sales and is expensive as well, I don't know if its still in production.  An ESSM-ER might be just the ticket for a cheaper long range missile system.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,600
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1685 on: November 28, 2019, 21:18:21 »
A reloading anti air gun system is almost mandatory if the ship is to survive to fight the attack that comes after the initial saturation attack.

To that end (a) the 30mm is essential; (b) whatever the anti air missile load out might be, chances are “... there’s never enough”, but it doesn’t hurt to try; (c) soft kill, deception, ems are essential weapons; and (d) operational skill and applied engineering such as damage control, maneuvering, speed etc. will save lives and win the grid for another days fighting.
... Move!! ...

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 258,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,077
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1686 on: November 28, 2019, 21:52:48 »
But there could also be lasers, yes? If so, don't forget the lasers for close in defense.

Far better option than the Mk.29 Ill-Tempered Sea Bass. :nod:

Offline Uzlu

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 271
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1687 on: December 24, 2019, 15:23:00 »
Quote
Canada's new frigates could take part in ballistic missile defence — if Ottawa says yes

Defence expert says the frigates' design shows Ottawa is keeping 'the door open' to BMD

Canada's new frigates are being designed with ballistic missile defence in mind, even though successive federal governments have avoided taking part in the U.S. program.

When they slip into the water sometime in the mid- to late-2020s, the new warships probably won't have the direct capability to shoot down incoming intercontinental rockets.

But the decisions made in their design allow them to be converted to that role, should the federal government ever change course.

The warships are based upon the British Type 26 layout and are about to hit the drawing board. Their radar has been chosen and selected missile launchers have been configured to make them easy and cost-effective to upgrade.

Vice-Admiral Art McDonald said the Lockheed Martin-built AN/SPY-7 radar system to be installed on the new frigates is cutting-edge. It's also being used on land now by the U.S. and Japan for detecting ballistic missiles.

"It's a great piece, and that is what we were looking for in terms of specification," McDonald told CBC News in a year-end interview.

Selecting the radar system for the new frigates was seen as one of the more important decisions facing naval planners because it has to stay operational and relevant for decades to come — even as new military threats and technologies emerge.

McDonald said positive feedback from elsewhere in the defence industry convinced federal officials that they had made the right choice.

"Even from those that weren't producing an advanced kind of radar, they said this is the capability you need," he said.

The whole concept of ballistic missile defence (BMD) remains a politically touchy topic.

BMD — "Star Wars," to its critics — lies at the centre of a policy debate the Liberal government has tried to avoid at all costs. In 2017, Canada chose not to join the BMD program. That reluctance to embrace BMD dates back to the political bruising Paul Martin's Liberal government suffered in 2004-05, when the administration of then-U.S. president George W. Bush leaned heavily on Ottawa to join the program.

In the years since, both the House of Commons and Senate defence committees have recommended the federal government relent and sign on to BMD — mostly because of the emerging missile threat posed by rogue nations such as North Korea.

Liberals reluctant to talk BMD

The question of whether to join BMD is expected to form part of the deliberations surrounding the renewal of NORAD — an undertaking the Liberal government has acknowledged but not costed out as part of its 2017 defence policy.

Missile defence continues to be a highly fraught concept within the federal government. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan made a point of downplaying a CBC News story last summer that revealed how the Canadian and U.S. militaries had laid down markers for what the new NORAD could look like, pending sign-off by both Washington and Ottawa.

Asked about Sajjan's response, a former senior official in the minister's office said it raised the spectre of "Star Wars" — not a topic the Liberal government was anxious to discuss ahead of last fall's election.

The current government may not want to talk about it, but the Canadian navy and other NATO countries are grappling with the technology.

Practice makes perfect

Last spring, a Canadian patrol frigate, operating with 12 other alliance warships, tracked and shot down a supersonic target meant to simulate a ballistic missile. A French frigate also scored a separate hit.

For the last two years, NATO warships have practiced linking up electronically in defensive exercises to shoot down both mock ballistic and cruise missiles. A Canadian frigate in the 2017 iteration of the exercise destroyed a simulated cruise missile.

At the recent Halifax Security Forum, there was a lot of talk about the proliferation of missile technology. One defence expert told the forum Canadian military planners have been paying attention to the issue for a long time.

The frigate design is an important example.

"I think what they've tried to do is keep the door open by some of the decisions they've made, recognizing that missile proliferation is a significant concern," said Dave Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "They haven't shut the door on doing that and I think that is smart."

Opponents of BMD, meanwhile, have long argued the fixation by the U.S. and NATO on ballistic missile defence is fuelling instability and giving Russia and China reasons to co-operate in air and missile defence.

Speaking before a Commons committee in 2017, Peggy Mason, president of the foreign and defence policy think-tank Rideau Institute, said the United States's adversaries have concluded that building more offensive systems is cheaper than investing in defensive ones.

"The American BMD system also acts as a catalyst to nuclear weapons modernization, as Russia and China seek not only increased numbers of nuclear weapons but also increased manoeuvrability," said Mason, Canada's ambassador for disarmament from 1989 to 1994, testifying on Sept. 14, 2017.

She also warned that "there would be significant financial costs to Canadian participation" in the U.S. BMD program "given American demands" — even prior to Donald Trump's presidency — "that allies pay their 'fair share' of the collective defence burden."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-ballistic-missile-defence-canada-1.5407226

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,600
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1688 on: January 04, 2020, 02:37:25 »
2020 CSC Projection: much paper work, many meetings, project bloat, shocking cost increases and nothing of substance will occur.
... Move!! ...

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,107
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1689 on: January 16, 2020, 13:27:10 »
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-ballistic-missile-defence-canada-1.5407226

CSC's radar missile defence-capable--from a LockMart news release:

Quote
Four Nations to Be Protected with Lockheed Martin's Next Generation Radar

Through partnerships with the U.S. Government, Spain, Japan, and Canada, Lockheed Martin’s solid state radar (SSR) technology will provide front-line defense to nations around the world with cutting-edge air and missile defense capabilities.These nations are part of a growing SSR family of 24 platforms, ushering in the next generation of maritime and ground-based advanced radar technology.The basis of SSR is the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR), which the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) selected Lockheed Martin to develop in 2015 with an on-track delivery set for 2020. In 2019 Lockheed Martin’s SSR for Aegis Ashore Japan was designated by the United States Government as AN/SPY-7(V)1.

What is SSR Technology?

SPY-7’s core technology is derived from the LRDR program, which has been declared Technical Readiness Level 7 by the U.S. Government. The technology consists of a scalable and modular gallium nitride (GaN) based “subarray” radar building block, providing advanced performance and increased efficiency and reliability to pace ever-evolving threats. As part of its investment into the advancement of SSR, Lockheed Martin built a Solid State Radar Integration Site to conduct detailed testing to prove the maturity of the system and reduce fielding risk. Scaled versions of the LRDR site will be utilized for future radar programs including Aegis Ashore Japan, Canadian Surface Combatant and MDA’s Homeland Defense Radar in Hawaii.

Solid state offers powerful capabilities to detect, track and engage sophisticated air and missile threats, including the very complicated task of discriminating – or picking out – and countering lethal objects present in enemy ballistic missiles. The Lockheed Martin SSR uses state-of-the art hardware and an innovative software-defined radar architecture to meet current requirements while providing extensibility features to pace evolving threats for decades to come. Its unique maintain-while-operate capability provides very high operational availability and enables continuous 24-hour/7-day week operation.

Solid state radar is a multi-mission system providing a wide range of capabilities, from passive situational awareness to integrated air and missile defense solutions. The combined capability and mission flexibility of Lockheed Martin’s SSR has gained the attention of new and current users of the Aegis Weapon System, the world’s premier air and missile defense combat suite...

Canada’s Department of National Defence also selected Lockheed Martin as the naval radar provider for its 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships. Lockheed Martin’s IAFCL is integrated with Canada’s combat management system, CMS 330, developed by Lockheed Martin Canada for the Royal Canadian Navy’s HALIFAX Class ships. The program will make Canada the owner of the world’s second largest Aegis fleet, and our SPY-7 radar variant will enable CSC to conduct highly advanced maritime missions for decades to come [emphasis added]...
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=release&prod=208918&cat=3

Mark
Ottawa 
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,148
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1690 on: January 18, 2020, 13:56:33 »
Quote
Canada’s Department of National Defence also selected Lockheed Martin as the naval radar provider for its 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships. Lockheed Martin’s IAFCL is integrated with Canada’s combat management system, CMS 330, developed by Lockheed Martin Canada for the Royal Canadian Navy’s HALIFAX Class ships. The program will make Canada the owner of the world’s second-largest Aegis fleet, and our SPY-7 radar variant will enable CSC to conduct highly advanced maritime missions for decades to come [emphasis added]...
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=release&prod=208918&cat=3

Based on this logic (CMS330 = Aegis) Canada already owns the world's second-largest Aegis fleet.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 171,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,914
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1691 on: January 18, 2020, 15:59:28 »
Random thought, here:

Would the SPY-7 work in a ground based application, say, in the north?

If so, what would be the economics of using the same radar to re-capitalize the NWS for NORAD?

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 217,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,009
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1692 on: January 18, 2020, 19:45:15 »
Would that be anything like the Aegis Ashore systems fielded in Romania and Poland? 

What is the functional difference among the Spy-1, Spy-6 and Spy-7?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,600
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1693 on: January 18, 2020, 23:17:25 »
And does the NWS have sufficient power at each installation and the existing bandwidth to transmit so much more data from the system?
... Move!! ...

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 171,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,914
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1694 on: January 19, 2020, 01:27:48 »
And does the NWS have sufficient power at each installation and the existing bandwidth to transmit so much more data from the system?

That is precisely the sort of things I am wondering.


Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 60,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,069
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1695 on: January 19, 2020, 08:01:17 »
And does the NWS have sufficient power at each installation and the existing bandwidth to transmit so much more data from the system?

If the installation is below 70 degrees N it may be able to tie into WGS constellation. But power supply would be a huge issue. Time for the mini Nuc power plants?  ;D

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 171,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,914
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1696 on: January 19, 2020, 10:17:06 »
If the installation is below 70 degrees N it may be able to tie into WGS constellation. But power supply would be a huge issue. Time for the mini Nuc power plants?  ;D

Don't laugh. Ontario, Saskatchewan and NB are working jointly on developing exactly that.

It could solve the power problem, without massive amounts of diesel being shipped north each year.

As for the datalink issue,  a series of microwave towers southward until you get good satellite uplink (or can tie into a fibre network), could also work.

If this could be made to work, think of the economies of scales on parts and repairs that could be achieved.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,600
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1697 on: January 20, 2020, 12:07:09 »
Maybe mods can split this off into another thread.

What non military equipment can be co-locates with a refreshed NWS site? Weather, climate, air quality and environmental equipment?
Is a fixed constellation satellite radar system a better option than ground stations?
... Move!! ...

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,107
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1698 on: January 20, 2020, 12:44:34 »
CSC's radar missile defence-capable--from a LockMart news release:

Mark
Ottawa
Quote
Thin Pinstriped Line on UK and missile defence (also much else, relevant to current SDSR):

Fortress Britain? Is it time to rethink how we defend the UK from attack?
...
 The most likely platform to host a BMD capability, at least in the short term, would be the Type 45 destroyer. The class is ideally suited to this sort of role and could probably be upgraded with relative ease – for example HMS DARING participated in BMD trials in the Pacific a few years ago and other trials have occurred since (see this article by ‘Save The Royal Navy’ for a good update).

The bigger question though is less about the specific package of weapons and radars you want to fit to the ship and more one of asking about what impact such a move would have on the Royal Navy.
The six strong Type 45 class can get 2-3 ships to sea on a routine basis, and those that are available are increasingly intended to operate as part of the Carrier Strike Group. If the decision were taken to move to a BMD role for the class, this would necessitate some very difficult decisions on how best to deploy them and how you could maintain a credible BMD capability.

Would it, for example, mean keeping the force on patrol at sea able to fire if required, essentially maintaining a conventional deterrent that would require 100% uptime, or would it be an occasional role that ships could slip in and out of as required. Also, where would the patrol areas be, and what impact would this have on generating ships to escort the Carrier?

The potential challenges are significant because policy makers will need to make a deliberate decision between providing ships to do a credible ballistic missile defence, or providing ships to escort the carrier – there is little point in having one do both if your BMD platform is needed at home, but is deployed in the far East.

More widely, what impact would assigning Type 45 hulls to BMD patrol have – to do it effectively requires being on patrol in specific areas to be able to intercept missiles. The US Navy already does this and essentially has a force of ships that do nothing but steam in circles around a patrol area. It is a retention killer and the wider people impact could be very harmful.

This is the sort of question that has to be looked at because if people are serious about mounting a credible form of BMD capability then it needs to be adopted with the same mentality and resource support as mounting the deterrent, and not just as an additional rather nice to have capability.

It would come at the cost of taking ships away from wider naval presence, and probably forcing difficult decisions on what else to invest in as a result. The balance that needs to be struck is between that of mounting a credible defence at home, and abroad as required – and this is not easy...
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2020/01/fortress-britain-is-it-time-to-rethink.html

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 168,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,358
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1699 on: January 20, 2020, 13:10:47 »
Hence the reason you have coastal artillery units. You can man the radars and missiles at significantly lower costs and manpower. The down side is that they are more likely to be in a fixed position and easily targeted. Portable missile launchers solve part of that, but harder to get the larger radar portable. A radar and missile system with a 300km range in the Shetlands covers a significant amount of the Northern approaches, throw in one near Aberdeen and Isles of lewis and you have the Northern approaches well covered with some overlap.